Just a couple of brief additions to the argument, for the sake of entertainment.

1) I'd think it would mostly depend on the patron god of said paladin. Many of the gods who are worshipped by paladins would probably prefer their holy warriors to be focused on more militant tasks, and would be unlikely to want to be associated with prostitution (i.e. Tyr may have no problem with legal prostitution, but he doesn't want his church to be a provider of such services, as justice is more his concern, and thus the concern of his followers).

2) A paladin shouldn't need a job beyond that of paladin. The church generally makes sure they don't starve when not actively questing, and the money they keep from their work, even after a hefty tithe, is more than most peasents ever see.

3) However, there are records of temple prostitutes, particularly in the Babylonian religions, and holy assassins who would not be above using sex to get close to their targets. While those would be more typically associated with clerical specialties, it's not impossible to apply the same idea of paladins.

In the end, I'd be hard pressed to defend it, though it does make for an interesting take on paladinhood, and not one that is totally impossible to deal with, given the correct choice of patron deity.

Oh, and does anyone know if evil paladins are chaotic or lawful? I always saw them handled as lawful evil types, followers of a survival of the fittest philosophy and honor code, but I've heard tell of them played as barely humanoid monsters who live for slaughter.

Oh, and does anyone know if evil paladins are chaotic or lawful? I always saw them handled as lawful evil types, followers of a survival of the fittest philosophy and honor code, but I've heard tell of them played as barely humanoid monsters who live for slaughter.

Either. The Blackguard PrC can be any evil, and Unearthed Arcana makes Paladins of Freedom, Tyranny, and Slaughter all available (CG, LE, and CE respectively).

OKay I have to ask this, why is everyone focusing the Paladin's on a patron diety? Right out of the PG they don't even have to have a patron deity. It's been bugging me for a bit since Clerics are the ones who are tied to a diety, Paladin's just have to uphold law and good. The more I'm reading in this thread the more the roles seem flipped as people talk about them.

Reason is that discussion said that paladins cannot be prostitutes because their lives are supported by church and that they do god's task so focusively they have no time or motivation to do any prostitution (that's why patron deity has been discussed). But if we rmeove patron deity then there is nothing in paladin's OWN ethics he could not pratice prostitution when not fighting actively against evil or chaos. Because paladin is then focused solely on universal aspects of good and law and so far prostitution is allowed according law and so long paladin does not missbehave as prostitute he can be one then.

I did a romanesque paladin woman to a goddess of, basically, beauty and harmony. I feel a paladin simply isn't 'programmed' right from the get-go. They're imbued with anonymous holy powers that they get regardless if they serve the one true god almighty, or Bungalo Bob who happens to be an LG God. =P It seems that they take on more of stereotypical 'angel of death' role than any serious and flexible roleplaying set. I think it's why people get all up and arms about them. Yes, to the rules, they are that rigid and limited and boring. To people's imaginations, it seems they can be placed as chosen warriors, so to speak, of a god's mission. Those tasked with the purity and willpower to be the sword-wielding arm of their patron. But yes, I do agree that a paladin by nature is a force of balaince for the side of good, where the evil paladin is that of evil. And neutral has its own pawns. In that right, I believe it would be in line to accomplish this mission of lawful nature and order while being a little deviant (Sex and such, yes), but in honesty and in the nature of your 'goodly' mission. I imagine a paladin would simply be more choosy about it, and would have willpower against falling in love. Though I definitely see it becoming plutonic.. as a Paladin is capable of much love. ^^ In my own imagination, anyways.

Now just the same could be said about things like Alcohol or anything of that nature. It would affect the paladin's judgement and purity. So why can't Paladins not have alcohol? I think it should simply be the teachings of what the Paladin grew up with, or in the bond they feel most deeply with their patron.

As a side note, I believe that some things in roleplaying are blatantly ignored. Such as respect and sponsorage. I dont see too many truly selfeless characters, or returns for such selflessness. I could imagine that paladins, clerics, etc. would be able to get free lodgings, or assistance if they need it, in turn for serving the needs of the community. You know, just out of respect. Of course the paladin would be played selfelessly as well. But that doesn't mean FORCING everyone in the party to give back to the community. Maybe pointing out kindness, or needs of the poorer folk, and donating his own share to where he feels it would best go.

They're strong, supernaturaly healthy, a vessel for divine power, with a heart of gold and inherent respect for the good people they're with.

There's nothing inherently Lawful or Good about working as a prostittuse or not doing so, though disguising oneself to do so is not Lawful.

It made good sense to bring the discusion to various religions, because it would be a paladins ethos that would determine wether working as a prostitue, either teporarily or for their, "Day Job," would be acceptable.

IT cuts back to the major problem with D&D 3.5, the alingment system. It gives these hideously ambigious rules about alingment, then doesn't say that they're culturaly flexible or anything.

Instead, it says that this or that class must absolutly adhere to this or that alingment, without giving ANY of them a code of conduct.

And then they went and stripped the codes of conduct out of the FR religions when they rewrote them for 3.5.

OKay I have to ask this, why is everyone focusing the Paladin's on a patron diety? Right out of the PG they don't even have to have a patron deity. It's been bugging me for a bit since Clerics are the ones who are tied to a diety, Paladin's just have to uphold law and good. The more I'm reading in this thread the more the roles seem flipped as people talk about them.

Well in the Forgotten Realms ANYONE that gets divine magic that is Clerics, Druids, Rangers and Paladins MUST have a patron diety magic like that must come directly from a diety. In other games its up to the Gm and no they don't HAVE to have a patron diety in a generic game. But even in those games Clerics don't have to. For example a cleric might devote themselves to a philosophy, a race or a force that they get their powers from. Example a character might support GOOD and LAW and take the domains Good and Law. Or they might follow one of the elemental forces and take the Domains FIRE and SUN for example for a devotee of elemental fire.

I can't see a Paladin as a street-walker, but if you want to look at the Courtesean style, such as in the series Firefly, or in the books by Jacequeline Carey (Kusiel's Dart, etc), I could see a Paladin who might occasionally accept a contract, if fromt he right society/background.

IT cuts back to the major problem with D&D 3.5, the alingment system. It gives these hideously ambigious rules about alingment, then doesn't say that they're culturaly flexible or anything.

Sorry if this comes across as hostile, but it's a pet peeve of mine...

What the Hell is so ambiguous about it? Good's good, Evil's evil, end of story. It doesn't bloody matter what any culture has to say about it; if a culture believes that doing evil is okay, then that culture, as a whole, is evil. Unless you're talking about someone's particular house rules, D&D alignment is objective. If you claim anything else about it, you're flat-out wrong. I'm not arguing it, because there's nothing to argue about, it's right there in the books. Why is this so hard for people to accept?

Please note that neither the definition of Good, nor Law, nor the Paladin's code says anything about sex one way or the other. Even the Book of Vile Darkness only barely touches on rape and so forth. Hell, one of the Celestial Paragons, the rulers of D&D's equivalents of Heaven, in Book of Exalted Deeds is openly bi (a move I never would have thought WotC had the guts to make).

There is one way I could see it that is if a faith REQUIRED a woman and or man prostitute for their faith once like the faith of Ishtar required of maidens before they became women. It would be a holy act. Other than that why would a paladin have to most serve in a faiths fighting arm and is supported by them for life and no where can a paladin not be married even to multiple wives if the culture allowed it. Like a Muslim Paladin could legally have three and a Jewish one perhaps hundreds. Look at accounts of King Solomon in the Bible. But earning a living why would they have to do that. Save for Gnomes whose community leaders called Sheriffs are almost always paladins even they hold their post under community support and don't work a forge for example.

Generally to me I take Lawful Good as acting in a manner according to the law and being actively benevolent that doesn't mean they won't for example in a fight NOT go for the horse of the opponent first to gain a tactical advantage. Unless a kit or PrC limits that sort of fighting like a Cavelier or something.

I did a romanesque paladin woman to a goddess of, basically, beauty and harmony. I feel a paladin simply isn't 'programmed' right from the get-go. They're imbued with anonymous holy powers that they get regardless if they serve the one true god almighty, or Bungalo Bob who happens to be an LG God. =P It seems that they take on more of stereotypical 'angel of death' role than any serious and flexible roleplaying set. I think it's why people get all up and arms about them. <SNIP> but in honesty and in the nature of your 'goodly' mission. I imagine a paladin would simply be more choosy about it, and would have willpower against falling in love. Though I definitely see it becoming plutonic.. as a Paladin is capable of much love. ^^ In my own imagination, anyways.

Wow. Well said.

Admittedly, I just scanned over this thread, so I may have missed something... but it seems that at the nature of this debate it the nature of the paladin as Chivalric vs. "other". And I think it depends entirely on the setting.

If the game's set in a western-european, high-middle-ages or dark-ages world, of course the Paladin, to be "pure", is expected to abstain from sex. Not that knights did that, even in the eariest treatments of Arthurian legend... but we imagine all paladins to be Gawainesque. That need not be the case, in my mind.

As a side note, I believe that some things in roleplaying are blatantly ignored. Such as respect and sponsorage. I dont see too many truly selfeless characters, or returns for such selflessness. I could imagine that paladins, clerics, etc. would be able to get free lodgings, or assistance if they need it, in turn for serving the needs of the community. You know, just out of respect. Of course the paladin would be played selfelessly as well. But that doesn't mean FORCING everyone in the party to give back to the community. Maybe pointing out kindness, or needs of the poorer folk, and donating his own share to where he feels it would best go.

So what do you think?

Agreed. I'd like to anonymously quote an old friend of mine, who-- on paladins-- said this: "It's lawful good, not awfully stupid." In my first couple games, Paladins were the target of ridicule or outright hostility because they were played as such complete extroverts. I'm sure there are examples where this is perfectly fine, but it seems to me that paladins who acted this way would be openly resented by everyone. Nobody would tolerate them, and they'd get more and more indignant and condescending with their self-importance, and eventually they'd just become sword-brandishing zealots, and end up being hunted down by every authority in the community-- including their own churches. The only successful paladins, then, would be-- in essence-- conquistadors, leading bands of thugs from place to place, "converting" and "purifying" the populace.

I always envisioned the Paladin as being NOT a swaggering blowhard, barking out orders to the party, but a deeply introspective and spiritual character who is, if nothing else, deeply pained by his or her isolation from others. They can be truly inspirational leaders, not because they cry havoc all the time and have the shiniest armor, but because they show courage where others would flee, and led out of action rather than words. How, exactly, that comes together is dependent upon their deity, sure, but the setting as well-- the social structure of the in-game world.

So why the hell not deviate from the Chivalric ideal of a Paladin? Gods and goddesses in fantasy worlds, and in historical ones, engaged in behaviors that we don't necessarily associate with monotheism. I won't name names, but you know what I mean. If a character's faith encourages abstinance-- awesome. It makes absolute sense for a self-disciplined warrior to control every urge. But if the character's faith revolves around a particular attitude or behavior, and the character maintains that-- then great. If it makes a good story, go with it.

I find prostitution a little awkward, though... can you imagine a merchant paladin, fighting for the god of low income taxes, or the goddess of tidy record-keeping? I can imagine sex, as a deeply spiritual act-- or a physical expression of freedom and pleasure-- something that could be deeply associated with a character's spirituality, certainly. So if it were up to me, I'd pass on the prostitute paladin. In that case, I guess Ruby Slipper's note...

There is one way I could see it that is if a faith REQUIRED a woman and or man prostitute for their faith once like the faith of Ishtar required of maidens before they became women. It would be a holy act.

... pretty much sums it up for me. Otherwise, it just 'don't make no sense.'

*sighs in relief*

OK-- my first diatribe is done, now I'll let the regularly scheduled program resume. Thanks for reading... assuming you got this far. :)

Nobody would tolerate them, and they'd get more and more indignant and condescending with their self-importance, and eventually they'd just become sword-brandishing zealots, and end up being hunted down by every authority in the community-- including their own churches. The only successful paladins, then, would be-- in essence-- conquistadors, leading bands of thugs from place to place, "converting" and "purifying" the populace.

I always envisioned the Paladin as being NOT a swaggering blowhard, barking out orders to the party, but a deeply introspective and spiritual character who is, if nothing else, deeply pained by his or her isolation from others. They can be truly inspirational leaders, not because they cry havoc all the time and have the shiniest armor, but because they show courage where others would flee, and led out of action rather than words.

On a side note, I agree with that! I find that players of paladins, in general, tend to stereotype the class so that almost every paladin comes across as a self-righteous, holier-than-thou, Mr Always-right pompous ass. Can't we have a quietly modest paladin who simply does what's right and doesn't blow his horn about it?

Anyway, this isn't about how crappily I've seen paladins being portrayed. This is about Holy Hookers and Hallowed Hoes and God-fearing Gigolos, which I think is just a wickedly funny idea

Can't we have a quietly modest paladin who simply does what's right and doesn't blow his horn about it?

That's how I usually play mine, and also how plenty of the FR fluff text in the sourcebooks portray Paladins, but let's face it - Paladins like that do not spawn upset posts on the internet or generally get nearly the same amount of press. Nor are they as horrifyingly memorable..

Well, most paladins (in FR) belong to Helm, Tyr or Torm and some evne Ilmater so they may be strict. But there are other paladins like Knights of the Weave (special roganization figthing against evil mages), Rose Knights (paladins devoted to Sune) and I also recall Kelemvore also had paladins and so does Azuth have. In my opinion all the paladins in FR are not made from same fold, culturall and nationall differences and also religious doghma can color paladin. Some cases even race colors it.